In God we trust... A constitutional violation?

isn't it ironic, that the people who speak out loudest against the freedoms our forefathers fought for, are the first to use the same documents they forged, as their weapons?

Classic example, The Pledge Of Allegiance, regardless of what decisons the 9th District Court of Fools might have made, it was not based on any constitutional merit, or violation. as much as the heathens and anti theists would leave you to believe, the word God, a Christmas tree, Menorrah, Star of David, or Islamic symbol on government property does NOT violate any amendment. Yet, those of you who exercise the SAME amendment, attempt to oppress others in the exercise of the SAME ammendment. Bill Of Rights translation for those of you slighty behind the curve, no one can tell you how to be religious, or not be religious, yet, you feel this gives you the right to tell ANYONE how they cannot celebrate their beliefs, or lack thereof.

Please, enlighten this ignorant soul to the part that says using the word GOD is against the Constitution

What I do see is a statement of fact "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" There is nothing in the first amendment that prohibits the US Government or Local Government, or, for Christs sake, a school having a Christmas Party, yet some in our society, are oppressing these basic rights. How? Ironically, they are using these great documents that gave them the freedom from oppression, to opress others. These same people, who use our documents, and our inalienable rights, and our process of free democracy, will accuse me of being a warmonger, a child killer, and an oppressor. Did I tell them, or did the Bill of Rights( the same document they use in their defense, or offense) tell them they had to utter or publish ANYTHING with the word God, or Freedom in it? No, That same document they defame, is the one and only reason, and one and only defense they use.

In another thread I defended the right for America to protect itself beyond our shores... I was accused of advocating the killing of children ( low, my RL friend of better than 20 yrs, yet should I expect better?) This is the mentality of those who care only for their selfish needs. Those same needs that need to twist the great words of our founding heros that gave you the freedom to have a free voice, the same fathers you show no respect or loyalty to.

your shoes are not worthy of my saliva, your replies, put them here, for on paper, I would not desicrate my ass by wiping it with them. (freedom of speech, the same thing you accuse others of taking from you, the same amendment you feel the need to stand up to others over, and that you feel is being violated, don't castigate me, applaud me for taking your side)

Here is the First Amendment, in its entirety, one I freely encourage ALL OF YOU to use, yet it will be THE ONLY one that is challenged in this thread.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Where for Gods sake is the use of the word God, prohibited?

To stop the personal attacks, YES I know, the Pledge Of Allegiance was NOT authored by our founding fathers it was originally published on Sept 8, 1892 in a boston based paper called "The Youths Companion" And it was originally written and published as a tribute to Christopher Columbus, as Columbus Day is Oct 11th. It was a tribute to the 400th anniversary to the "white man" discovery of the Americas.
I am also aware that in 1954, Dwight D Eisenhower was the President who approved the addition of the words "under God" to the pledge.

I would be willing to bet, that now, most of you now know more about the pledge than you did 130 seconds ago. Please, allow me to exercise my 1st amendment rights and utter the Pledge as Pr Eisenhower changed it, while you protest that same right. I shall not deny you your right to free speech.

Funny, sometimes it takes a good Pee to clear ones mind, thats what I did. In doing so, I realized, that The Pledge of Allegiance has NOTHING to do with National Loyalty, but is it a statement about the spirit of exploration, adventure, and the discovery of new territories, within ourselves, and in the world. This was written for Christopher Columbus! The greatest and most glorified explorer of any era. The Pledge
Yet we all, liberal, conservative, or libertarian minded feel the need to call this great sonnet into question as a politcal tool. It has been turned into a political tool by a shortminded father who wanted to make a name for himself, and zealously over stated his daughters case, and found a board of idiots willing to listen. Our argument is not with the Pledge, or the words contained therein. Our argument is a much more selfish one. Those of you who want the word God removed, are in essence, arguing that you should not be forced to utter it (Bravo!, keep your mouth shut at that point) Those of us arguing the other side may not want to utter, but we defend OUR right to utter it, and your right to NOT utter it.(Bravo! Keep your mouth shut while we exercise OUR 1st amendment, we gave you the same courtesy)
If we can allow you that courtesy, is it too much to ask for the same?

Somehow, I feel, that if we all look to the spirit of the Pledge, we can find a way past the piss-ant trivialities of it's verbiage. On that note, I take the first step, anyone else?

Uhm, Cash? Do you expound to yourself often? *Looks around for evidence of other visitors to this thread.*

Ahhh Cash, still spouting your right wing, christian hegemony bullshit I see. You know, it's not atheists that twist the words of the constitution for their own ends, it's people like you. Yeah yeah, it says freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion as you narrow minded types like to point out.... in doing so you also point out your own ignorance of the disposition of the founders towards religion, and in particular towards Christianity. Many of them had outright hostility towards it. Ironic how people are so willing to forget that they came to this country to get away from a christian nation.

There were very few christians among the authors of the constitution. The god they invoke is the Deist god; the god of nature. I'll assume you don't know what Deism is so I'll enlighten you. Deists believe that there was a god who created the universe but then his work was finished and he has no further interest in the affairs of man, or the universe in general. The Deist god requires no worship or tribute.No judgement day. No heaven or hell. No anything. Deism is about as close to atheism as one can get while still believing in creationism. These were men of the enlightenment whose heads were swimming with the bold ideas of their day... science, philosophy, industry... had scientific theories about the origin of the universe and the evolution of species been at the point then that they are today you can bet that most of them would have been atheists.

James Madison is known as the "father of the constititution" so let's see what he has to say about Christianity...

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

I guess you could say he wasn't a fan Let's hear what he has to say on religion and its relevance to our system of government...

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."

That seems pretty clear don't you think? Let's hear what he has to say about the separation of church and state...

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

Still think they used the word God in the way you imply they meant it? Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. Let's hear what John Adams had to say on the subject of Christianity...

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"

and on the role of religion in government...

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."

". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."

Still think they intended us to be on bended knee in worship of some mythological god?

Here are some words from Benjamin Franklin on the subject...

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here [England] and in New England."

His close friend, Dr. Priestly, wrote in his autobiography about his friend Franklin, ""It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin's general good character and great influence should have been an unbeliever in Christianity, and also have done as much as he did to make others unbelievers"

Here's more from Thomas Paine...

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my church. "

"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. "

Still think these guys intended us to be a nation "Under God"?
If so, don't you find it a bit odd that nowhere in the Constitution is there a single mention of Christianity, God, Jesus, or any Supreme Being? The Constitution contains only two references to religion, and both are exclusionary... The 1st Amendment's says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . ." and in Article VI, Section 3, ". . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

The famous letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists that has been used to support the intent of the establishment clause in every supreme court case on this subject states ""I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

I'm more inclined to take Jefferson's word on the intent of the establishment clause than I am to take the word of self serving religious people who have a bad habit of rewriting history to suit their own twisted worldview.

As for the pledge, I doubt you told anyone here anything they didn't already know about the origins of the pledge and the insertion of "under god" in the 1950's. But you left out a few bits. "Under God" was inserted during the height of the McCarthy era in response to the "red scare." They wanted to made damn good and sure no one mistook us for those godless commies! It was an act of bigotry towards atheists, not an honest portrayal of the intentions of the founders. I love how religious people defend the continuation of that same bigotry by claiming that their rights are somehow being violated if they can't continue to have exclusionary anti-atheist sentiments expressed in national mottos and pledges that they hijacked in the 1950's. It's ironic that Francis Bellamy, the original author of the pledge, was himself a socialist.

The government of the United States was meant to represent ALL the people, not just those who believe in superstition and mythology.

I think most of the founders were probably rolling in their graves when Eisenhauer (after intense lobbying by the Kinights of Columbus and other Christian groups) had the words "Under God" added to the pledge. It was a clear violation of the establishment clause as it was an assertion that this is officially a monotheistic country, which is completely contrary to the religious freedom, including freedom FROM religion, intended by the men of reason who founded this nation.

And before you spout anything about the bible being the foundation of western law, I'll address that too... Western law is based on Saxon common law. Saxon common law was in existance for more than 200 years before Christianity was even introduced among the Saxons.

Thomas Jefforson elaborates...

"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.

". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

Soooooo.... you can continue to believe that the founding fathers intended this to be a religious nation "under God," but to do so is an act of willful ignorance. It simply isn't true.

Worship your god how you choose, in your home or house of worship. God has no place in the public square, and most definitely NOT in government. You're an intelligent guy, Cash. Too intelligent to be so snowed by religious propagandists. Your view is what's twisted.

Last but not least, as far as the pledge goes, indoctrinating little children in mindless flag worship is creepy, backward, and entirely beneath us as a nation. The whole pledge should go, not just "under god." But those two words are a good place to start.

Wow, I posted a thought, one thought, only one thought. it took me 3 attempts to get it correct, I have received a 20% attack, funny, those that attack, use the rights I defend, to assault with. While I may be dense, I'm not right winged, nor a devout Republican, but I was accused of being such. I am, above all, an AMERICAN, as I hope my esteemed detractors should respect. I do respect their POV. I guess seeing both sides these days is a sin, so I shall resort to appeasement, strioke their dog, and sadly laugh when their grand plan comes crashing down... Until then I remain, faithfully.... Cashmere Falcone.

Proudly defending your right to flame me, and any others who deign to have an independant opinion, or use GOD in a public manner or expression.

Chip, for some reason, you seem to take particular exception to my opinions (LOL Chip and I are RL friends of more than two decades, believe it or not) While I did not attack, or protest ryour rights, again, you make undeniable assaults upon mine. Once again, I declare my right to assemble, my right for free speech, my right to say GOD in any public, legal, and congressionally approved venue. I also support and endorse your right to NOT say it. I have yet to oppress your freedoms, why do you insist on oppressing others?
god God GOd GOD! fucking GOD! Damnit all. Realise that those you oppose are the same that fight for you, to give you the freedom you espouse to the Heavens, the right to deny... I guess you and Willy are happy as cowards, shying away from conflict. You expected nothing less in your president, I should expect nothing less in his constituents...

Uhhh, yeah... that's really showing respect. It's a bit late to backpeddle.

Oh, that's the problem with all you people living under god. Eventually everything falls into the "sin" and "not sin" categories.

You can say god all you want. Hell, you can even have a slumber party and fuck god up the ass for all I care. (ride em cowboy!) However, it is kind of odd that those who believe in a god feel the need to have it validated all the time in a pledge.

But hey, whatever floats your boat honey. (oh can someone explain Mary to me? I mean, do you sit at home and stare at the box the TV came in?)

Anyway, enough of this sinful talk, I've got some guy here with a cock covered in jelly that I need to take care of.

Toodles.

Neehai

tada dee tafda tadum.... I was grossly mistaken in my last post... I hope I corrected my gross oversight...

Until then, I remain, your frontline defender of opinion, your frontline right to speak out against the government you decry, the frontline defender willing to die so that you may speak. I also remain the muted voice, silenced my the Judicial Panel and their rulings you proclaim as Gospel, but it IS a Government ruling, so I shall abide. Far be it from me to question the wisdom that made this country prosperous and great, I guess you know more, you question their motives at every juncture.

Your silent guardian of truth, and bullshit, whenever you utter it....

please continue to post, as we expect to defend your rights to do so.

Wow, I was going to reply, then realised, it wasn't worth it. Nee check your voicemail, your proctologist called, he found your head.

TAKEN FROM THE WORDS OF THE THREAD CREATOR:

"Here is the First Amendment, in its entirety, one I freely encourage ALL OF YOU to use, yet it will be THE ONLY one that is challenged in this thread.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."


Repeating that ...

"I come not to bury Ceasar, but to praise him."

Did we all not read above these very words:

"...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

And have people NOT assembled and petitioned the government for redress in the matters of the seperation of church and state???

And have changes NOT been made??

Seems to me like what is happening
(The drive for separation that you so adamantly oppose, Cash), is provided for in the very ammendment you say we have soiled.

"...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Doesn't it stand to reason that adjustments will be made as more cultures (preciously unrepresented in our founding) and more sharing of these cultures infuses our national culture??

As long as said 'adjustments' are sought via the methods our government so CLEARLY proivided...

"...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

what is the problem?

Hmmm...let me read that one again.

"...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Yep! Thought so!


~~Alana

Why not try responding to the substance of my very lengthy post rather than just playing the victim card? I fully respect your right to post vitriolic rants, just as I will excercise mine to disagree. I even gave you tons of factual evidence to support my opinion. By doing so I'm somehow being unfair or suppressing your right to speak? There is no Constitutional rationale for acknowledging god in the pledge. The only way to be totally inclusive to all citizens regardless of religion or lack thereof is for government to remain neutral. That means no proclomations of monotheism or any other kind of supreme being or beings. Why is that so difficult to understand? To defend "under god" in the pledge is to say that atheists and agnostics are second class citizens. Pardon us for having a problem with that.

The true irony of the pledge issue is that inserting under god into that particular line completely changes its meaning to something contrary to the sentiment its supposed to express. "One nation, indivisible" means that we are an inclusive society and we will not let the nation or its people be divided again (it was about the civil war). Changing it to "One nation, under God, indivisible" excludes everyone but monotheists. It's like saying "One nation, divided, indivisible." It's a contradiction in terms. It makes no sense. This isn't rocket science. If you support keeping those words in the pledge, you can't claim to be a defender of rights. It requires talking out of both sides of your face.

Wow, Chip. I was going to weigh in on this thread, but you've covered anything I would have said and have said quite a bit more. You've made an excellent case; 'tis a pity Cash is too enamored with his martyrdom to notice.

I have to agree with you entirely, Chip, and that's totally what I thought happened, too. You made a clear defense and left no opinion without evidence to back it up and Cash responded with a plea to the audience to take pity on him because he was struck down. He can't fight back because your case was too-well made. Good job.

Side note on the pledge:

As a kid I lived in Maryland for 3 years (I'm an Australian)... and had the hardest time trying to get teachers to understand why I *wouldn't* say the pledge..

1. Not being a citizen, but a visitor , I CAN'T pledge allegiance to your flag...

2. Although Mr Teacher couldn't see this - by doing as they wanted and 'well just say it anyway' would be stating a falsehood, and making light of something rather important - not to mention casting insult on a nation.

*sigh* The things they want for blessed conformity.

Siggy.

(oh, and though put on detention multiple times, and sent home from school on 8 different occasions - I never did say it...)

Actually, Siggy...

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the SCotUS specifically ruled at some point that no one can be forced to recite the pledge. Every child has the right not to recite it; in the Newdow case, the contention was that even though his daughter was not required by law to recite the pledge, the mere inclusion of the phrase "under God" would highlight her (hypothetical) non-belief and consequent non-recitation as different or unusual or non-standard within the classroom environment.

In other words, if your teacher was punishing you for not reciting the pledge, your teacher was quite simply breaking the law. Assuming, of course, that you attended school after the germaine SCotUS ruling.

Of course, this sort of thing is nothing new in our private and public schools. Teachers break laws and ethical rules left and right, often running a kind of tyranny over the children they're supposed to be educating.

When you post rants that are offensive and derrogatory to those who do not share your views I'll respond as I would to anyone who does so. You are my friend, which is perhaps why I expect more from you than most people, and it saddens me that you hold these views despite the fact that you personally know people who have been negatively affected by society embracing them and forcing them on the rest of us. When you refer to liberals as fools, atheists as heathens, and through your viewpoint imply that people of my ilk are second class citizens, then you don't get a free pass. Sorry. Doesn't mean I'm not your friend. You'd have more right to be offended if I pandered to ideas that you already know my disposition on. I truly hope you'll broaden your horizons a bit. You're too smart to be such a dogmatist.

"In god we trust" --- Look, if you trust god, it's your problem. I, for one, would never trust anyone who would level two entire towns just because he disagreed with their morals. Not to mention everything else that's horribly fucked up about the bible...

Annuit Coeptis
Novus Ordo Seclorum

-AP

LOL!!!
Taggy, I lurve j00

Better put a timeframe on this - 1977.

Also I wasn't sent home for 'not reciting the pledge' but for 'insubordination'- gotta love technicalities. Even so, that they would try and get me to say it is minor when you compare it with the teacher not being able to flaw the logic of a then 10yr old, and the best answer I could get was 'because I told you to'

That gives me more cause for concern that anything else.

Siggy.

I wish more people would spell-check their posts!

---

Annuity Copters
Novas Oreo Decorum

(I still don't know what it means, something to do with cookies I guess)

I dunno .. I kinda favor Eddie Izzard's take on it

http://www.auntiemomo.com/cakeordeath/d2ktranscription.html#godattackthequeen

and for the lazy the relevant part of the link is :



-AP